What the hell? He's taken 41 wickets in 7 matches... that's hardly doing very little.

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

What are you saying that taking 41 wickets in 7 test at the SCG is saying he did little after his first test?, are you mad. I have seen all of his SCG test & the only match he was outright POOR was vs India 2004, also in the ashes test aslo he was average but not poor.

Secondly how in gods glorious name did MacGill have just 1 good test betwen this period, fortunately i saw all these test so let me break it down, since it quite obvious that he had more than just 1 good test

1. SCG 2001 vs WI, he had a pretty good match
2. SCG 2002 vs SA, another good test
3. MCG 2002 vs Eng, good test
4. Bridgetown 2003 vs WI, excellent test
5. Galle 2004 vs SRI, imo i didn't think think he was bad in this game, he may have ran throught the tail in the 2nd innings, but in the 1st innings he supported Warne fairly well.

So i got 5 test out of 16 where he wasn't poor

Finally so what if he dismissed a lot of tailenders in these 3 test, he bowled very well in these game regardless, especially in the super test, the fact that he did that shows the he is bowling well since if he doesn't pick up top order wickets he is very effecient at cleanig up the tail, but if he is bowling poorly he wont even do that.

Plus you could also add the adelaide & MCG test matches where even though the stats show he didn't take a load of wickets he certainly bowled very well especially at the MCG where his control was arguably the best i've seen from him in his career

Originally Posted by Richard

He only had the chance to prove it in 2003\04. So what you mean is that he's been super-consistent since 2003\04. Even that's not totally true, since he was hardly magnificent in SL and Ind, with 1 really good innings (at the last possible moment) in 14.

Compare the way Langer played in SRI 99 & IND 2001 to how he played in SRI & IND 2004 if you say the games you would realise that he played them much better. The 178 in colombo highlighted his improvements since i'm very sure that in SRI 99 & IND 2001 he didn't have the capability to play such an innings againts quality spinners on turning tracks in such a pressure situation.

Originally Posted by Richard

I won't be surprised as such, but I don't take it for granted the way you seem to.

I'm not taking it for granted, i'm judging him overall, he has gotten hit and has come back strong with few side effects. I just think he is one of those blokes that even though it should affect most if you are hit as often as i guess he has over his cricketing career, that JL is one of the few blokes that it wouldn't affect as much.

Originally Posted by Richard

I'm not sure - I just think it's likely.
I rarely eat my words.

By January 6th 2007 we'll see..

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't. All it takes, as we saw even this summer, is someone to get after him and he can lose it completely.

Well that only happend once in test this summer, which was on the 1st afternoon in adelaide when he had the 2nd new ball when Lara attacked him and he he didn't lose it completely. He tested Lara and it was just the brilliance of Lara that enabled him to combat Lee.

The South Africans are a defensive team and in none of the 6 test did any of them try to attack Lee.

What are you saying that taking 41 wickets in 7 test at the SCG is saying he did little after his first test?, are you mad. I have seen all of his SCG test & the only match he was outright POOR was vs India 2004, also in the ashes test aslo he was average but not poor.

41 wickets at 29, on a square where normally a decent fingerspinner would be taking wickets at 25s or so isn't that good. He certainly was poor, incidentally, in the Fifth Test in 2002\03.

Secondly how in gods glorious name did MacGill have just 1 good test betwen this period, fortunately i saw all these test so let me break it down, since it quite obvious that he had more than just 1 good test

1. SCG 2001 vs WI, he had a pretty good match
2. SCG 2002 vs SA, another good test
3. MCG 2002 vs Eng, good test
4. Bridgetown 2003 vs WI, excellent test
5. Galle 2004 vs SRI, imo i didn't think think he was bad in this game, he may have ran throught the tail in the 2nd innings, but in the 1st innings he supported Warne fairly well.

So i got 5 test out of 16 where he wasn't poor

The only good game was Bridgetown 2003.
He certainly wasn't remotely good in either The MCG 2002\03 or Galle 2003\04. Both games he took wickets at a poor average without having chances missed.
Yes, his figures in the 2001\02 and 2002\03 SCG games aren't too bad, but as far as I'm concerned they told little story.

Finally so what if he dismissed a lot of tailenders in these 3 test, he bowled very well in these game regardless, especially in the super test, the fact that he did that shows the he is bowling well since if he doesn't pick up top order wickets he is very effecient at cleanig up the tail, but if he is bowling poorly he wont even do that.

He didn't really bowl well in any of those 3 games (nor in the SA SCG one where he got 3 wickets when the slog was on), certainly not in the Super Test.

Compare the way Langer played in SRI 99 & IND 2001 to how he played in SRI & IND 2004 if you say the games you would realise that he played them much better. The 178 in colombo highlighted his improvements since i'm very sure that in SRI 99 & IND 2001 he didn't have the capability to play such an innings againts quality spinners on turning tracks in such a pressure situation.

One innings doesn't really highlight much.
He's a better player of spin now than he was then, but he's still not especially good.

I'm not taking it for granted, i'm judging him overall, he has gotten hit and has come back strong with few side effects. I just think he is one of those blokes that even though it should affect most if you are hit as often as i guess he has over his cricketing career, that JL is one of the few blokes that it wouldn't affect as much.

And I think pretty much no-one can simply keep on not being affected.

Well that only happend once in test this summer, which was on the 1st afternoon in adelaide when he had the 2nd new ball when Lara attacked him and he he didn't lose it completely. He tested Lara and it was just the brilliance of Lara that enabled him to combat Lee.

The South Africans are a defensive team and in none of the 6 test did any of them try to attack Lee.

Err, I hardly see that any of the South African batsmen other than Kallis are defensive players.

41 wickets at 29, on a square where normally a decent fingerspinner would be taking wickets at 25s or so isn't that good. He certainly was poor, incidentally, in the Fifth Test in 2002\03.

good god, so what if he averaged 29 if the wickets at the SCG usually are big turners, it isn't a fantastic but that could NEVER be poor. Its like you are saying a bowler who ends his career averaging 29 has had a poor career, geez come on man

Originally Posted by Richard

The only good game was Bridgetown 2003.
He certainly wasn't remotely good in either The MCG 2002\03 or Galle 2003\04. Both games he took wickets at a poor average without having chances missed.
Yes, his figures in the 2001\02 and 2002\03 SCG games aren't too bad, but as far as I'm concerned they told little story.

I'm pretty sure you saw the MCG test and i dont know how you could so he wasn't `remotely` good at the MCG . In the 1st innings for example he was bowling pretty well it was White late on that attacked hitting him for 3 big sixes & messed up his figures a bit but its not as if he bowled trash in the 1st innings.

In the 2nd innings he took 5 wickets, i would admit he was wayward mixing some good deliveries/beauties (which got the wickets of Trecothick, Vaughan, White & Foster) with some trash but he certainy wasn't poor in this test by any stretch of the imagination.

Also i dont know if say the Galle match but if any one saw this game i dont know how you can say he was poor. Christ in the 1st innings he may not have had any drop chances but he played a key supporting role to Warne in not allowing the SRI to score runs quickly after Australia had been skittled for 220 on day 1. In the 2nd innings SRI batted like fools (trying to attack Australia on the last day on a real turner when they should have trying to survive) and after Warne made their top order pay for that MacGill just mopped up the tail.

Originally Posted by Richard

He didn't really bowl well in any of those 3 games (nor in the SA SCG one where he got 3 wickets when the slog was on), certainly not in the Super Test.

i didn't mention the SCG SA game this year since no spinner in the game including Warne bowled particularly well. But you got to be mad to serioulsy tell me that the way he bowled at the SCG vs PAK, ICC World XI & vs WI at hobart was poor.

Originally Posted by Richard

One innings doesn't really highlight much.
He's a better player of spin now than he was then, but he's still not especially good.

That whats i'm saying he is a better player of spin than he was then..

Originally Posted by Richard

And I think pretty much no-one can simply keep on not being affected.

fair enough we'll see how things go with him come the start of the domestic season.

Originally Posted by Richard

Err, I hardly see that any of the South African batsmen other than Kallis are defensive players.

Come one South Africa are a defenisve team, the only really `aggressive` players in the top 7 are Gibbs, DeVilliers & Boucher, blokes like Smith, Prince, Kallis, Rudolph, Dippenaar are cleary defensive blokes. You dont see them take in it to opposition bowlers like Australia have done so successfully in the last 10 years of England did in the ashes. They play typical old fashion test cricket when they bat i.e score at just about 3 an over and try to grind the oppositon bowlers.

good god, so what if he averaged 29 if the wickets at the SCG usually are big turners, it isn't a fantastic but that could NEVER be poor. Its like you are saying a bowler who ends his career averaging 29 has had a poor career, geez come on man

There's a difference between a career averaging 29 and an average like that at what some people have the nerve to call a "good" ground of his.
A good spinner, incidentally, should average far less than 29 on a ground which produces so many turners.

I'm pretty sure you saw the MCG test and i dont know how you could so he wasn't `remotely` good at the MCG . In the 1st innings for example he was bowling pretty well it was White late on that attacked hitting him for 3 big sixes & messed up his figures a bit but its not as if he bowled trash in the 1st innings.

In the 2nd innings he took 5 wickets, i would admit he was wayward mixing some good deliveries/beauties (which got the wickets of Trecothick, Vaughan, White & Foster) with some trash but he certainy wasn't poor in this test by any stretch of the imagination.

He wasn't that good. Incidentally, with regards The MCG 2002\03... he started poorly and continued that way, getting Dawson out isn't exactly that much of an achievement, Hussain was out to a poor stroke off a nothing ball; then in the second-innings Trescothick was a poor decision, then having had at one point 1-112 and 2-147 he got Vaughan, White, Foster and Caddick with similarly poor balls, all were dismissed playing ill-judged cut strokes.

Also i dont know if say the Galle match but if any one saw this game i dont know how you can say he was poor. Christ in the 1st innings he may not have had any drop chances but he played a key supporting role to Warne in not allowing the SRI to score runs quickly after Australia had been skittled for 220 on day 1. In the 2nd innings SRI batted like fools (trying to attack Australia on the last day on a real turner when they should have trying to survive) and after Warne made their top order pay for that MacGill just mopped up the tail.

So in other words MacGill bowled rubbish for all the game then got a few tailenders, a familiar pattern...

i didn't mention the SCG SA game this year since no spinner in the game including Warne bowled particularly well. But you got to be mad to serioulsy tell me that the way he bowled at the SCG vs PAK, ICC World XI & vs WI at hobart was poor.

He bowled OK at The SCG against Pak and against WI at Bellerive, but certainly not against the World XI, he just got a load of tailenders and ill-judged top-order strokes.

That whats i'm saying he is a better player of spin than he was then..

But you mentioned 2001 when in fact it had nothing to do with it...

Come one South Africa are a defenisve team, the only really `aggressive` players in the top 7 are Gibbs, DeVilliers & Boucher, blokes like Smith, Prince, Kallis, Rudolph, Dippenaar are cleary defensive blokes. You dont see them take in it to opposition bowlers like Australia have done so successfully in the last 10 years of England did in the ashes. They play typical old fashion test cricket when they bat i.e score at just about 3 an over and try to grind the oppositon bowlers.

Smith, Prince and to a lesser extent Rudolph are all strokeplayers. No, they didn't manage to attack McGrath or Clark, but few can successfully - especially on the pitches we got served-up in SA.
Almost all batsmen these days are strokeplayers - only Dravid and Kallis of the current top players are not.
At the current time we don't really see much "grinding opposition bowlers", mainly because the bowlers are so poor it's not really neccessary.

There's a difference between a career averaging 29 and an average like that at what some people have the nerve to call a "good" ground of his.
A good spinner, incidentally, should average far less than 29 on a ground which produces so many turners.

Well think about this then both India has the biggest turners in the world & the two greatest spinners of all-time Shane Warne & Muttiah Muralitharan when they were in top form & had the best backup in support, i.e:

Warne had the best seam attack to with in India in his career in 2004
Muralitharan had his old champion Vaas in 2005

Yet they both averaged over 30, note i'm not comparing MacGill to them all i'm saying is that even though the pitch is a turner averaging 29 isn't a bad effort especially looking at the fact that he took wickets.

Originally Posted by Richard

He wasn't that good. Incidentally, with regards The MCG 2002\03... he started poorly and continued that way, getting Dawson out isn't exactly that much of an achievement, Hussain was out to a poor stroke off a nothing ball; then in the second-innings Trescothick was a poor decision, then having had at one point 1-112 and 2-147 he got Vaughan, White, Foster and Caddick with similarly poor balls, all were dismissed playing ill-judged cut strokes.

Fair enough you brought back addittion memories i'll give you the MCG as well but i maintain its 4 out of 16 & not 1 out of 16 as you are stating.

Originally Posted by Richard

So in other words MacGill bowled rubbish for all the game then got a few tailenders, a familiar pattern...

Ha, now how the hell did you come to the conclusion after what i stated that MacGill bowled rubbish that entire game & then took a few tailend wickets?

Originally Posted by Richard

but certainly not against the World XI, he just got a load of tailenders and ill-judged top-order strokes.

I mentioned before thats how MacGill bowls, if he doesn't get top order wickets he is very effective at cleaning up the tail. When he isn't e.g India 2003/04, WI 2003 1st, 2nd, 4th test he doesn't even do that.

MacGill certainly troubled the top order of the World XI batsmen, the delivery that got Inzi stumped was beauty of a leg-break.

Originally Posted by Richard

But you mentioned 2001 when in fact it had nothing to do with it...

I know but i was really referring exactly to 2001, i meant `since then`. But yea i understand what you are saying i should have been more specific from the start.

Originally Posted by Richard

Smith, Prince and to a lesser extent Rudolph are all strokeplayers. No, they didn't manage to attack McGrath or Clark, but few can successfully - especially on the pitches we got served-up in SA.
Almost all batsmen these days are strokeplayers - only Dravid and Kallis of the current top players are not.

They would play their strokes yea , but they aren't batsmen who can take it to oppositon bowlers even at their best. South Africa in every series i can remember dating back to the unofficial world championship series in 2001/02 season have always batted like that. Againts all the major test playing nations in most conditions except ZIM & BAN they play like that unless the opposition bowl trash like pakistan did herehttp://usa.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/PAK_IN_RSA/SCORECARDS/PAK_RSA_T2_02-06JAN2003.html[/URL] or what England bowled on occassions in 2003, when they bat they are generally a defensive in their approach.

Originally Posted by Richard

At the current time we don't really see much "grinding opposition bowlers", mainly because the bowlers are so poor it's not really neccessary.

Thats true but even againts poor attacks on flat patches South still bat that way. In the West Indies last year they batted like that.

So yes, I think Australia could do much worse than
Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath
MacGill
As I say - I'm perfectly well aware it ain't gonna happen, but I think were it to do so, Australia would have a good chance.

6 bowlers. That line up is possibly the craziest thing I have seen. Im assuming that as you are an England fan that this is the best lineup to give England victory.

There are not enough overs to justify 6 bowlers. They are not needed. Only 30 overs or less in a session and guys would not get a chance to bowl.

There is no balance to that side. If Australia bowled England out cheaply (lets say 180-250) then 1 or 2 of the bowlers would end up not bowling and end up playing with virtually only 9 or 10 men.

Also if a big score is posted then the 6 bowlers did not do their job and suddenly you are under pressure if 1 or 2 quick wickets fall when replying to a large total with a weak batting lineup.

There are only 10 wickets to take when bowling and only 4 bowlers are generally required to do this job (sometimes 5).

If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits

One of the best new-ball combinations the world has seen for a long time, with support by the greatest spinner the world's ever seen, and MacGill can just be in there because it seems that Poms don't like leg spin. As much as Lee thinks he is a champion pace bowler, his average since returning to the side has been over 30, which isn't good enough. Dizzy's career average is 26, and he only had one bad series. Picking Lee over Gillespie is ludicrous.

i would have clark in over gillespie at the moment. i don't see how you could put gillespie in our bowling attack because of a performance against the worlds worst test side whereas stuey clark took 20 wickets in south africa which is arguably one of the toughest tours out there.